Campaign finance limits violate free speech
By Andrew Lewis
web posted October 13, 2003
Earlier this year President Bush risked the lives of American
military personnel to end Iraq's tyrannical regime -- a
dictatorship that not only restricted the actions of Iraqis but also
silenced them from speaking their mind. It is ironic that President
Bush led America into that war only days before signing
legislation -- the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (B.C.R.A) --
that would violate and ultimately curtail *our* freedom of
speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing this legislation -- and
with it the future of free speech in America.
The alleged goal of B.C.R.A. is to end corruption in the political
process. The two key provisions of the law, based on legislation
drafted by Sen. Russell Feingold and Sen. John McCain, are the
pre-election ban on "issue advertisements" sponsored by
corporations and unions and the limits on so-called "soft money."
Far from stopping corruption, these provisions are violations of
free speech.
Political contributions, large or small, are a mode of speech --
more clearly so than many of the forms of "symbolic speech,"
such as nude dancing and the filing of lawsuits, that have
previously been protected -- because they explicitly entail the
expression of ideas. Your contribution to a candidate is *de
facto* the publication of your ideas and is similar to hiring a
speaker or commissioning an author. The amount of money you
contribute -- as an individual or in cooperation with others --
should not disqualify you from expressing your ideas. The only
proper "limits" on contributions are those set by your willingness
to employ your money for this purpose.
All forms of advertising, including television advertising, are
crucial means for communicating your ideas, values, and
arguments. Election time is perhaps the most opportune time to
broadcast political ads. Under the B.C.R.A.'s provisions,
however, "issue advertising" on television is prohibited 60 days
before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
B.C.R.A. strictly limits how much corporations and other
organizations can contribute in "soft money" to a political party,
but leaves political action committees, such as the
environmentalist Green Power and Sen. McCain's own Straight
Talk America, relatively free to speak their mind. With this law,
our government is effectively telling us: "Shut up. Sit Down.
Listen." And the only voices we'll hear are those the government
has approved. This law restricts *in principle* what you can say
by restricting how much you can say -- and when you can say it.
The B.C.R.A. will ultimately create in America an entrenched
ideological elite granted permission to speak by the government.
The fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to protect
the right of citizens to express their views. The right to speak
cannot be implemented without the right to property. The right to
acquire and dispose of your property makes it possible for you
to express your ideas, be it by publishing a book, placing an ad
on the op-ed page, hiring a hall in which to deliver a lecture,
supporting a candidate with whom you agree, or, more
important, criticizing one with whom you disagree. The right to
use his property is the only protection a private citizen has
against a government monopoly on ideas. As Chief Justice
Rehnquist correctly noted, "[It's] not up to the government to
decide there is too much speech coming from one place and not
enough from another."
The Supreme Court would do well to strike down the entire
B.C.R.A., and pave the way for repealing all such legislation at
federal and state levels.
Campaign finance limits cannot end political corruption, because
the origin of this problem is the arbitrary power that politicians
have to impose undeserved punishments on, or grant unearned
rewards to, groups and individuals. The "special interests"
contribute to candidates (often on both sides of an election) in
order to escape certain controls or to appeal for legislative
favors. But the corruption lies in the arbitrary power our
politicians have, not in the fact that the victims or beneficiaries of
that power try to influence its exercise. Removing that power,
therefore, is the only way to eliminate the corruption.
Limiting the amount of money spent on elections will not solve
the problem of influence- peddling; it will, however, destroy a
principle vital to our republic. It is the right to use and dispose of
one's property that makes freedom of speech possible. Taken to
its logical conclusion, the B.C.R.A. would move America's
political system toward that of Iraq's former dictatorship.
Andrew Lewis is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute
(www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the
philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction@aynrand.org
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com